Sorry, had to.
Anyone want to put this background song behind Joe Biden's creeper video?
Last edited by devil21; 07-28-2015 at 12:32 AM.
"Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul
"We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book
I was here before you sonny, try to ease up on the self-importance a bit before lecturing further please. Anyhow, your quote is rhetorical nonsense, and frankly I'm not terribly impressed by the religion of speech as being an anarchistic free-for-all. Allow me to give you a little counterpoint to your pullquote:Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34
The beauty of this quote is that it is actually an original one that I just composed. It's actually quite liberating to be able to make a point without having to lean on somebody else's work, you might try it some time.The handiwork of libelers and slanderers are lies, and the notion of them having the right to frolic about and hurl their proverbial
feces to the four winds is the enshrinement of lies, nay, their deification. Henceforth, while it goes without saying that any condemnation
or punishment must be based in fact, it is stipulated that consequences follow any thing that is repugnant or vicious, lest we ought just
say that "foul is fair and fair is foul". For if the rights of libelers are protected, the society that they infest will never know the meaning of
the word security, let alone have any rights, real or imagined, to claim as secure.
Last edited by hells_unicorn; 07-27-2015 at 11:15 PM.
Your age isn't a useful credential in this conversation. Trying to play this card is very amusing of you, though.
Actually, it's not rhetorical nonsense. It's perfectly logical. If you need more context, read the chapter at the link. (that's why it's there! A whole chapter for you to read before trying to ineptly come up with a witty and flippant response!)
Huh. Did you have to work to make such an irrelevant and inaccurate point or did it come naturally?Allow me to give you a little counterpoint to your pullquote:
The beauty of this quote is that it is actually an original one that I just composed. It's actually quite liberating to be able to make a point without having to lean on somebody else's work, you might try it some time.
TRUTH. even if he at best was only extremely boorish and something of a pig, the word
"NO" is not the word "YES" even if modern marriage is a slightly archaic 1800s legal concept.
Clinton was also accused of rape.
You stated I was new to the liberty movement, I corrected you since my profile is older than yours and I was reading Mises and others in the Austrian School back in the 1990s. My age was not the focus of that quip, and my use of the word "sonny" should be treated as ironic.Your age isn't a useful credential in this conversation. Trying to play this card is very amusing of you, though.
Actually, it is rhetorical nonsense, and it's not terribly logical when you consider the many negative outcomes to allowing slanders and libelers free reign over a society. I am already familiar with Walter Block's works and I've found his views to be asinine on this particular topic, and a few others while we're on the subject.Actually, it's not rhetorical nonsense. It's perfectly logical. If you need more context, read the chapter at the link. (that's why it's there! A whole chapter for you to read before trying to ineptly come up with a witty and flippant response!
Work is energy/time, so technically speaking I did have to expend some time and energy to make the point, but not a terribly large amount. Furthermore, the point was not inaccurate and is completely relevant. I assumed with all that lofty talk about the Eastern Orthodox Church having the truth that you've posted on the "Freedom Through Religion" forum that you'd have a degree of reverence for the concept of the truth, but I supposed I was mistaken, eh? Perhaps lies are a constitutional right except on Sundays?Huh. Did you have to work to make such an irrelevant and inaccurate point or did it come naturally?
Now a lot of you would say, why are we picking on Donald Trump, why would we pick on Donald Trump who raped and pulled his wife's hair out 1990. Should we even waste two seconds on Donald trump who raped and pulled his wife's hair out in 1990? Well first of all its not true. its not true that Donald Trump raped and pulled his wife's hair out in 1990. So if you have any proof that Donald Trump raped and pulled his wife's hair out in 1990, then stop gossiping and go right to the police with it.
Not true. I said "One of the great errors among newer folks in the liberty/libertarian movement." People of all ages/experience in the movement can make this n00b-ish error-and do. Ditto with IP issues.
You're familiar with Block's work and still make this error in understanding "unflattering" and other "unpleasant" speech? I am disappoint.Have you a solid counter argument or is it just your subjective opinion?
You kids and your non-seqiturs!LOL!!! I hope you're just having fun like I was when I made that post...I would be srsly disappoint if not.
Honestly, I think this will make Trump fans love him even more. Just look how they act.
I just got finished telling you that I'm not new to the the liberty movement and I've held a libertarian position for about 20 years, though recently as I've read more I've been moving more in a Paleo-conservative direction, primarily because of massive problems with the ideology. Kindly cease in making this a question of age, it should be clear now that that was not what I was talking about.
Here's my counter-argument, and I think that you'll agree that it's far from subjective.You're familiar with Block's work and still make this error in understanding "unflattering" and other "unpleasant" speech? I am disappoint.
I was having fun at first, but I am getting a little bored, though that could partially be due to people who misspell non-sequitur and spell seriously as "srsly".You kids and your non-seqiturs!
Just out of curiosity, what specific tenets of libertarianism do you reject (other than re slander/libel)?
Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 07-28-2015 at 12:19 AM.
The rejection of objective morality as it pertains to social behavior is a big one, and I'd argue it's tied to the ideology's tendency to obsess over the individual and to downplay, if not outright ignore, inherent group dynamics. I've tended to support the ideology on matters of economics, personal liberty, and share it's skepticism for a militaristic foreign policy, but they lose me completely on a number of social issues.
I think there's potential to bridge the gap between that view and minarchist libertarianism. For a minarchist, rights violations are justifiable if and only if they're necessary for the state to fulfill it's security-providing function. At a bare minimum, that means taxation to pay for the state. But other things might be justified in certain circumstances as well. In short, a minarchist could potentially support conservative social policies as a means to an end (achieving security), but not as an end in itself. I'll leave it there so as not to derail; maybe I'll start another thread on it sometime.
I believe the article stated the New York law was changed in 1984 and the incident occurred in 1990.
"He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
"dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
"You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
"When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q
"Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul
"Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."
In the article it states that rape within a marriage was no longer lawful in New York as of 1984. The supposed incident with Trump occurred after 1984 and in New York.
Here is an article describing the change in the law back in 1984:
http://www.nytimes.com/1984/12/23/we...no-longer.html
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles"
You need a f'n law to know you shouldn't rape?
No. Look where the conversation started, read what I was responding to, and I think you'll get what the discussion was about.
And the whole subject isn't even about rape as Ivana herself said it wasn't a literal rape, but it was about receiving less affection than usual.
Here is a statement from the person revolution3 is claiming was a rape victim:
Ivana Trump REJECTS rape allegations, says Donald Trump ‘would make an incredible president’
Last edited by jj-; 07-28-2015 at 11:04 AM.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/28/politi...ape/index.htmlCohen apologized for his comments Tuesday, calling them "inarticulate," and said the reporter's question sent him into a tailspin.
"As an attorney, husband and father there are many injustices that offend me but nothing more than charges of rape or racism. They hit me at my core. Rarely am I surprised by the press, but the gall of this particular reporter to make such a reprehensible and false allegation against Mr. Trump truly stunned me. In my moment of shock and anger, I made an inarticulate comment - which I do not believe -- and which I apologize for entirely," Cohen said in a statement to CNN.
Cohen, who is one of Trump's top lawyers, threatened to sue the Daily Beast reporter and ruin the reporter's life.
"I will make sure that you and I meet one day while we're in the courthouse. And I will take you for every penny you still don't have. And I will come after your Daily Beast and everybody else that you possibly know," Cohen said, according to the Daily Beast. "So I'm warning you, tread very f---ing lightly, because what I'm going to do to you is going to be f---ing disgusting. You understand me?"
"Mr. Trump didn't know of his comments but disagrees with them," Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski told CNN, referring to Cohen's remarks to the Daily Beast.
Ivana Trump rejects rape allegations, says she and Donald Trump are ‘the best of friends’
BY Adam Edelman
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
July 28, 2015
Just a day after allegations re-emerged that Donald Trump raped his ex-wife, Ivana Trump, the bombastic billionaire’s former spouse played down the controversy — and endorsed his presidential run — saying that the two are still “the best of friends.”
"I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension during my divorce from Donald. The story is totally without merit,” Ivana Trump told CNN ...
“... Donald and I are the best of friends and together have raised three children that we love and are very proud of. I have nothing but fondness for Donald and wish him the best of luck on his campaign,” she said.
“Incidentally, I think he would make an incredible President,” Ivana Trump, who divorced her husband in 1992, added.
I just got finished telling you that I'm not new to the the liberty movement and I've held a libertarian position for about 20 years, though recently as I've read more I've been moving more in a Paleo-conservative direction, primarily because of massive problems with the ideology. Kindly cease in making this a question of age, it should be clear now that that was not what I was talking about.
Here's my counter-argument, and I think that you'll agree that it's far from subjective.
I was having fun at first, but I am getting a little bored, though that could partially be due to people who misspell non-sequitur and spell seriously as "srsly".
I'm shifting to Minarchism and Anarchy recently.
Last edited by rg17; 07-28-2015 at 01:51 PM.
Ivana says the story is 'totally without merit.'
Ivana Trump rejects rape allegations, says she and Donald Trump are ‘the best of friends’
BY Adam Edelman
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
July 28, 2015
Just a day after allegations re-emerged that Donald Trump raped his ex-wife, Ivana Trump, the bombastic billionaire’s former spouse played down the controversy — and endorsed his presidential run — saying that the two are still “the best of friends.”
"I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension during my divorce from Donald. The story is totally without merit,” Ivana Trump told CNN ...
“... Donald and I are the best of friends and together have raised three children that we love and are very proud of. I have nothing but fondness for Donald and wish him the best of luck on his campaign,” she said.
“Incidentally, I think he would make an incredible President,” Ivana Trump, who divorced her husband in 1992, added.
I just want to be clear, I still have no intention of voting for Trump in the primary and am extremely ambivalent on whether I'd do so in a general election if he was nominating given that the differences between him and anyone on the Democratic side other than Bernie Sanders would be nominal at best. However, it speaks volumes that just yesterday Trump was being compared to Bill Cosby and now Trump's own wife is coming out to refute this ridiculous hit piece by The Daily Beast. The fact that people on here were all but ready to declare the same filthy rag that hired Meghan McCain a political ally because they hate Donald Trump was a bit much to take in, and I'm still trying to process all of it even now.
I've generally identified with Minarchism but I've always defined it within a pre-Civil War context. My general lack of enthusiasm with identifying as a libertarian has more to do with the movement being invaded by social libertines and anarcho-syndicalists, as well as some long held misgivings I've had towards the way anarchists tend to view human nature.
And on a final, unrelated point, if somebody is slandering or libeling me, they will get hit with a lawsuit. I do own my reputation and I reserve the right to knock any individual person silly if they think it is their's for the taking, and I also reserve the right to hit them again and twice as hard if they cry about their so-called free speech. If you can dish it out, you are in for a good whooping.
Well, I can only hope then your reputation is destroyed with anonymous speech.
Why can't people weigh the evidence themselves, or not think about it, should they be so inclined?
I hope you medidate on this, it's a ridiculous position.
Moreover, do you think if you're not in the upper echelon of society you will likely be able to use those laws in your favor? It's a tool for the rich to shut down people who say mean things about them, that might even be true.
Last edited by jj-; 07-28-2015 at 02:08 PM.
My comment had nothing to do with either Trump or Tramp. (which is which is better left to speculation). My comment had everything to do with the question of whether the alleged activity was right or wrong based on its legality. Maybe it never happened as described. Maybe it did and Donald paid off everyone involved with a crap ton of money to recant. Don't know, don't care. Either way that's totally irrelevant to the idea that the above described activity can be perceived as right or wrong based on whether it happens to be legal or illegal. I don't need a law to tell me not to do heroin or rob a bank, and I sure as hell don't need a law to tell me not to rape.
Typical woman.
Pfizer Macht Frei!
Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.
Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!
Short Income Tax Video
The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes
The Federalist Papers, No. 15:
Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.
So it's okay to lie about someone as long as they are rich, because sometimes it might be true? And I'm the one holding the ridiculous position? Sorry, I'm gonna need a ticket before I can join you in the twilight zone.
P.S. - People are with rare exception, by nature, stupid and prone to believing everything they hear, otherwise there would be no such thing as tabloid journalism. Asking them to weigh the evidence, in many cases, is like asking a chimpanzee to recite a Shakespearean soliloquy in Cantonese. Furthermore, I see this as matter of principle, I don't reduce it to something simply for my own advantage though it would be to my advantage to shut down a liar who is hurting me either economically or socially with his bile. And by the way, the bulk of your post falls into 2 classic polemics that Neo-cons and Progressives have about libertarians, namely that they are reckless and wholly self-absorbed (progressive cliche) and that they harbor class envy tendencies (Neo-con cliche). They'd both thank you for making their point for them, congratulations.
Last edited by hells_unicorn; 07-28-2015 at 04:24 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us